I'm all for "letting the market decide" unfortunately we have no means for pricing the cost of transactions. Sure the transaction author can negotiate with a miner but he has no way of negotiating with every node operator in the world and every single one of them bears a cost for his transaction. Even if a node opperator has sizable bitcoin holdings it is unlikely that the befit of the increased value of his bitcoin as a result of his running a full node will outweigh the cost, so this cost is effectively "socialized" and he is expected to bear it for the sake of altruism.
The point is, we all would love to avoid central planing, but without the ability to make a market we have no alternative. This article presents a false choice, that of central planning vs allowing the market to decide, but there is no market here. The best we can hope for in terms of creating a market to address this problem is competition among crypto currency central planners, then the market can decide which central planners are producing the best monetary policy.
Dont think that im some sort of socialist. I'm as pro market as they come. This is just the unfortunate reality of the situation. I wish it weren't so.
It would be great if you could read the actual proposal and show where the problem is specifically, rather than just list your a priori assumptions.
If there was an allocation to node running as proposed, it would help. Since nodes are needed for mining, it was envisioned that the mining rewards would do this.
In economic solutions to avoid centralization, look for the Nash equilibrium and to avoid solutions with advantages weighted toward incumbency. Justusranvier has a pretty well reasoned description of what that might look like.
Creating a market for node running would not be a bad thing, if done with incentives favoring distribution in the design. TBF has a sort of small incentive program going:
https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/It is an off-network incentive, so maybe we'll see what happens with it..